and the broken record keeps on playing.. I’ll just end up quoting myself again since you are saying the same things over and over, to which i will do the same in response 😀

Hmm. I thought that described you and the JSF nonsense. You of course could do some reading yourself. There is plenty of information out there. Since you are so ready to believe the aircraft builder. Try press releases as one start. One of many things you will find is the safe technology already tried out with a manned F-18, that will allow UCAVs to land aboard ship. The carrier will now get a 1200+ strike circle around it instead of the short one offered by SH or JSF without tanking.

that my friend, IS related to our national defense.. you think stunting/defeating a foreign nation’s aircraft industry has no value in the defense of the US? But I guess you like the idea of a wildly successful Eurofighter or Rafale whose unopposed sales will lead to money for more R&D and the possibility of tech transfers or outright sales to hostile nations :rolleyes:

Wake up, You might want to consider what is really happening to the aircraft industry as a whole and not just the military end of it. Your forum handle is appropriate because after these corporations get done with our industry. The only thing you will be able to do is make hamburgers as there won’t be any jobs for you to do in aerospace engineering. “Wildly successful Eurofighter or Rafale” …….first of all, just looking at Europe, it isn’t buying a lot of arms. Polands F-16 was a 6Bil give away courtesy of the U.S. tax payer. The offsets were just plain dumb. So I guess I should jump for joy over that. If someone wants to buy EF2000 or Rafale, I don’t really care. It is the second best solultion out there in a combat arena where second doesn’t matter and is a whole generation behind what is first. Having said that, when legacy airframes are teamed up with strike UCAVs, it is a strong force, and for the Euros, more than good enough to get the job done. A UK carrier of the future… if that ever happens, would be more impressive with a mix of salty EF2000 and UCAV that the Buick JSF.

making countries use American equipment gives America political leverage over them too, as with any other country. That’s when you do the talking.. but then again, I guess this has escaped your simplistic logic since you’re just concerned with big bad companies and saving your tax money.

Yeah, I have seen our wonderful political leverage in action. It’s not to impressive lately and certainly has almost nothing to do with what is supposed to run our country: the constitution. As for saving my tax money. Sorry it is no small concern as we are wildly in debt and giving bailouts to corporations that just farm out workshare overseas, isn’t really some kind of super sound business model.

Yeah and you still haven’t posted up relevent articles, news, stats, etc. I guess reading comprehension is too difficult for you?

Asked and answered above. To include current operational combat experince we have with running and learning the NCW environment for years. And the fact that X45 and X47 flew and performed well in their testing. The same thing can not be said of JSF which given that it isn’t even needed… Isn’t doing all that well including the waste of making a jump version with shorter range and weaker payload. Add to that Gen Jumper came out over a year ago and said we aren’t going to be buying as many of these. So much for the thing being cost effective to include end unit cost. I expect more cuts of total airframes to be announced.

again, questions that are already answered, read above my balding friend. Furthermore, do you really think the aviation industry always creates “perfect” aircraft?

Never said they did. Be even better though if we weren’t producing a weapon system that isn’t even needed. A weapon system that is going to rob money from things we really do need.

there will always be those that are not adequate for current needs. However in terms of the JSF, it is something needed,

Exactly how in strike detail and execution of an air plan? Please explain its wonderful use (outside the fluffy corporate press release ). It in fact is a waste of money when we can already hit strategic targets by any other method and when an enemys airpower is beated down,…. There really isn’t a need for JSF that can’t be done any other way.

not only for us but for our allies who can’t afford or have clearance for your utopia of F-22’s, B-2s and long range knick knacks.

Not really interested what our allies can or can’t afford. Many of them can defend themselve very well “as is” . I don’t see Europe being invaded anytime soon so that pretty much takes care of them. If they want to do some expeditionary warfare effort on their own, that is for them to decide. As for long range airframes. Congratulations, you are learning.

there’s nothing wrong with that. Infact I feel that Americans are wasting their tax dollars with Israel (no offense to Erez), and getting little benefits in return. However there’s a fineline between being optomistic and being impractical/delusional. However I guess if I wanted further input on how such a future military force is supposed to function, i probably should talk to the horses mouth rather than a broken record who spews the same information as he/she is simply not the horse. 😮

Why? You are doing fine believing that the aerospace industry gives a damn for your personal welfare and would never be untrue to you. Your words: “impractical and delusional” would apply to that line of thinking. Only Israel? I would expand that list but, that is only my opinion.

——————————-

Here is where the aircraft industry is really going. Good to think about as my tax dollars help prop up efforts like this with all the corporate give aways congress writes into law with their pals. Below is good reading too for Boeing and Airbus fan boys. :rolleyes:

——————————-

Posted on Tue, Jun. 14, 2005

As competition heats up, jobs fly into China

BY KRISTI HEIM

The Seattle Times

TIANJIN, China – (KRT) – Jessica Hu, a petite 26-year-old worker in a cotton blouse and jeans, clutches a metal clipboard and inspects a bin of parts on the floor of a factory in north China. The products she monitors, including wing parts for the Boeing 737, help the world’s airplanes fly smoothly.

She earns about $3 a day.

Throughout the factory, young Chinese women in hairnets and white aprons are hard at work assembling composite parts for various Boeing planes.

The steady transfer of airplane manufacturing from Seattle to countries like China shows little sign of slowing. Lower labor costs are only part of the reason.

In China, the heated competition between Boeing and Airbus for nearly $200 billion in sales over the next two decades hinges not just on prices and politics. The more willing Boeing and Airbus are to share technology and provide local jobs, the more likely they are to win Chinese orders.

Along the way, investments by the two airplane builders are helping China become a global aviation manufacturing center. A third of all Boeing planes now flying have major parts and assemblies built in China.

Such work falls to people like Hu. She grew up in a nearby town and, after studying accounting in vocational school, began working at the factory three years ago. Like most of the plant’s employees, Hu speaks some English and chose an English name for herself.

Hu considers her job difficult, with a lot of procedures to master. But she strives to do well. “It gives me a sense of pride,” she said.

The tedious process of building composite parts requires precision and concentration, work that managers think is best done by young women. Workers cut lightweight sheets of material with a laser, tape the pieces together and seal them in a vacuum pack to be fused into a solid mass overnight in high-temperature autoclaves.

Sharp chemical smells of glue and paint permeate the work area. It’s nearly lunchtime, and the music of Strauss’ “Blue Danube Waltz” filters in over the speaker system.

Ubiquitous white poster boards with company slogans hang in the hallways, cafeteria and on the factory floor. “Don’t try to explain why it won’t work. Think of a way to make it work,” one slogan proclaims.

As one of the largest composite factories in China, BHA Aero Composite Parts produces about 200 different parts for Boeing, including the 737 trailing edge, interior panels for the 777, and the wing-to-body fairing panels and tail cone for the Next-Generation 737.

Boeing, Hexcel and the state-run China Aviation Industry invested a combined $60 million to open the plant in 2001. The joint venture, which employs 350 people, supplies parts to Boeing through Connecticut-based Hexcel and to other companies around the world. BHA also is bidding to furnish parts for the new 787, which uses composites to reduce the number of parts and the overall weight.

Like China itself, the aviation industry is going through the upheavals of modernization. Factories are facing pressure to improve their efficiency, quality control and management.

Some families from Washington’s Puget Sound region have several generations who’ve spent their careers working for Boeing. By contrast, in China, it’s hard to train good workers fast enough or hold on to them for long.

The aviation industry is losing its appeal for talented young people like Zhou Xianfeng. Young engineers leave state-run aircraft companies the first chance they get, he said. Low salaries, inefficiency and nepotism drive them away.

Zhou, an engineer with experience at state-run and private companies, grew up in the far northeast and spent the first years of his career working for Hafei Aviation in Harbin, a city in China’s Heilongjiang province. When an offer came from the repair division of German airline Lufthansa, he moved to the southern boomtown of Shenzhen at the opposite end of the country. Last year, he moved again when he was hired by MID American Supply, a small U.S. company in Tianjin.

His wife and young daughter still live hundreds of miles away in Harbin. But airplane travel makes it possible for Zhou to return home in a few hours. He earns about $1,000 a month, six times more than he did in Harbin, and he has the freedom to work independently.

These days, Chinese workers prefer jobs at private companies, joint ventures or foreign enterprises, said Liu Xu Ji, a veteran manager in a factory of the state-owned Xian Aircraft.

As a career choice, jobs in state-run factories are “not the best,” he said. “But a lot of people want to come here because it’s stable,” he added. “No one can be fired.”

Joint ventures like BHA have their own problems attracting the right people.

It’s a challenge to persuade good U.S. managers to come to China, said Jerry Zheng, a BHA manufacturing engineer with 20 years’ experience.

Often, “the ones who are sent here are expensive, but they don’t understand,” he said. “The ones who are qualified don’t come.”

“China is a mystery to them,” he added. “They think China is still like the Qing Dynasty, with men in long braids and women with bound feet.”

The BHA factory sits in an industrial development area near the gritty port of Tanggu, about two hours from Beijing. Residents say pollution from years of heavy industry has spoiled the environment. Nearby construction projects rise from dusty fields. A neon-lighted boardwalk with enormous modern art pieces suggests Las Vegas By The Sea.

Among local Chinese workers, turnover is high and training a challenge. All around Tanggu, other foreign companies beckon: Motorola, Honeywell, IBM, Mitsubishi. Job-hopping is common.

In spite of the problems, China’s technical expertise continues to grow.

Besides BHA, Boeing also is working with China’s state-run aviation companies: China’s Chengdu Aircraft will supply the 787 rudder, Hafei Aviation the 787 wing-to-body fairing panels, and Shenyang Aircraft the 787 vertical fin leading edge. Boeing said those contracts are worth $600 million, adding to $1 billion in earlier purchases from China.

Airbus is going further by transferring complete production of A320 wings from Wales to China by next year and moving some design work to China. The wing will be produced by Chinese manufacturers in the northern cities of Shenyang and Xian. Shenyang is already the single supplier of emergency-exit doors for the A320.

In Beijing, Airbus is transforming a field of weeds into a new design center that will employ 200 people and design up to 5 percent of the A350, a new mid-size plane Airbus has proposed to compete with the 787.

Chinese aviation officials want more such projects. Keeping workers employed helps promote social stability in places where bankrupt state-owned enterprises have left millions idle. And learning the technology could help Chinese companies build their own airplanes.

Are Boeing and Airbus sacrificing their future by transferring more work to China?

Airbus is not outsourcing any of its cutting-edge technology, said Airbus China marketing director Rick Jones.

The company is starting new designs in Europe while shifting older technology to China. European laws restrict Airbus from laying off European workers even as the company expands operations elsewhere, he said.

In Boeing’s case, retaining manufacturing expertise won’t matter as much in the future, says Boeing China President David Wang. The company wants to focus on large-scale integration.

“To us the ability to make machine parts is not important,” he said. “We would rather have partners do that.”

Chinese manufacturing partners will play a key role in building the 787. For instance, Chengdu Aircraft in southwestern Sichuan province will be the sole supplier of the plane’s rudder.

“This is really risk sharing,” Wang said. “If they don’t make this successful, the plane won’t fly.”

McDonnell Douglas made the first foray into aircraft manufacturing in China 20 years ago when it set up assembly of the MD-80 in Shanghai. It lasted less than 10 years, producing only 35 planes.

“What we came to realize is that Chinese industries were not fully ready,” said Peter Chang, managing director of China Aviation Marketing in Redmond, Wash., and a veteran of the McDonnell Douglas project.

But with its experience of the past two decades, China is embarking on a new venture, this time on its own. AVIC Commercial Aircraft is moving forward on production of an indigenous regional jet, the 80-seat ARJ-21, with an initial government investment of $600 million.

The jet, numbered for the 21st century, will have an engine from GE, a flight-control system from Honeywell and onboard electronics from Rockwell. Such a plane would not compete directly with Boeing or Airbus, but it could challenge smaller jets made by Canada’s Bombardier. Brazil’s Embraer has a joint venture with a different arm of China’s civil-aviation authority to produce a similar regional jet.

Regional jets will find plenty of customers within China’s huge domestic market, said Michael Allen, chief operating officer at Back Aviation Solutions. And China’s aviation leaders have the drive to become more self-reliant and the ambition to compete globally in the future.

“They have a view of time that is a lot longer than the typical American may consider in thinking through a business decision,” he said.

Only a few countries in the world are large enough to support a viable airplane-manufacturing industry. China is the only one with a huge and growing market, low-cost manufacturing and a continuous supply of technical talent, Chang said. Its technical prowess was demonstrated two years ago when it launched an astronaut into space.

Now, with the Airbus deal to build A320 wings, Chinese manufacturers are finally gaining some of the critical airplane wing technology they have sought for two decades. Chang compares China’s aviation industry today to the Japanese automobile industry in its infancy.

Perhaps, he says, “in 30 years when we’re retired and golfing, China will rule the aviation world.”

—

© 2005, The Seattle Times.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/11890833.htm

poor elp, you seem to have gotten aggitated simply because I refer to your opinions as being one and the same as Kurt’s.. but hey, it is true. I’ve seen your posts there and you’re nothing but a yes-man to every comment he makes.. i’m guessing he’s the “many” USAF personnel you talk to?

And again with your baseless assumptions. Nope. And to you I could say the same, that you are ready to believe public consumption happy face info on the JSF without considering or having any real knowledge of where the USAF is right now… today, in the form of it current budget and sustainment woes.

Hell, we’ve have one posting in this forum right now who’s in the USAF..why not ask him what he thinks of it.

Well if it is SOC who you are referring too, I am familiar with him. He might even tell you about how ops budgets are being redone in order to funnel off that money to pay for the current daily expense which is Iraq. That isn’t a theory of any kind, that is fact.Here is some more ( of much_many ) blowback showing our budget woes that hightlights the money disaster http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2005/06/06/daily36.html as it exists ( fact ) The wheels are going to fall off. Yet we have to jump off a cliff and buy a weapon system we don’t need. Great move.

I’ll cut straight to the chase since we’re both repeating the same things.. you’ve posted no stats on the “advance development” of UCAVs

The “stats” if you want to call it that comes in a few flavors. As mentioned already, the gradual operational experience of ops planners and command and control like JSTARs, HQs etc to already feel more comfortable with UAVs and the idea of UCAVs as time goes on. That by itself is big. Add to that the progress made by both X-45 and X47 in tests. Their aerodyanmics isn’t especailly earthshaking or difficult with mach 0.75 at 35,0000 and higher being reached. The weapons dropping isn’t terribly complicated either with drops of SDB like shapes having made hits on targets. That isn’t so terrible and it is good considering a lot of funding hasn’t been poured at it.

yet are willing to undermine America’s aviation industry by promoting a policy of restricting exports and non-competitiveness and blaming the corporation for your woes.

Explain to me how cancelling an expensive, un-needed weapons system undermines America’s aviation industry? Especially when that industry does everything in their own power to shoot itself in the foot with stunts involving everything from the failed tanker lease, F-18SH, and other corrupt procurement methods of systems back and beyond. I’m sorry what I say doesn’t wrap everything up in a pretty bow with a smiley face.

I’m sorry if you don’t understand the constant of globalization..but it’s too late. it’s already happening and everyone else is doing it.. if the US is going to stay in the game it’s going to have to do it’s best to remain competitive by continuing to subsidize aircraft to other nations to defeat competition and to offer some building to foreign countries.

What I understand is that we are spending money we don’t have on borrowed money for weapons systems we don’t need. Its gone way beyond “subsidize”. it has reached into consistant bad behavior in a purchasing system where the players think they don’t have to follow the rules of procurement. The current state of weapons buying is driving off the known map of financial reality.

but given your recent political explanations.. it seems you are a paleo.. which is ironic.. you desire something that is no longer practical and in the past, yet you are overly optomistic about the future of UCAVs w/o looking at anything in the present situation :rolleyes:

My only “desire” is to not give away massive amounts of tax dollars every year that produce no gain to our national defense. As for being optimistic about UCAV. Why not? Its good to see some thinking in an era where everyone wants the next latests manned aircraft, in this case JSF, which doesn’t justify the money we will pour into it.

…

Just make sure theres no official work on it before you send it in. 😉

Any force structure I would suggest is well rounded. UCAV strike, again isn’t going to do everything, but it will do a lot. I don’t see any superior solution based on the F35 being part of an air plan. What parity? When an enemy airforce just got its head kicked in by F22, B2 and a blizzard of PGMs from many platforms. This would include, yes UCAVs but it would also include later FB-22, and later if we are going to use cruise missiles for global strike beat down of enemy airpower, that will also include fast high altitude strike weapons that move not unlike the scram jet that was tested from that NASA drop a few years back with an SDB like payload. As for building up the Army? Yup we need a healthy Army, but when we keep wasting it and using it for 2nd generation warfare jobs of invasion and occupation when a 4th generation war solution is better suited to fight a fourth generation warfare threat ( terrorisim ) you tell me. I don’t believe in sending an army to occupy and die for useless dirt that we don’t intend keeping. Do you? We are fighting a war on terroism ( GWOT ) :rolleyes: So we stop the hunt for Osama and go to Iraq? Real smart. Sell F-16s to Pakistan… that helps GWOT big time :rolleyes: GWOT requires a healthy National Guard here at home. Forget that, that is bled white. Our forefathers are rolling in their grave knowing we took state milita off to fight in some useless expeditionary war of occupation. Add coast guard to that too. If we were to use the army effectively, we would have two divisions on the south boarder helping boarder patrol stem the flood of illegal immigration that is stressed out all kinds of public service in AZ NM TX CA . And a few other problems to add to the list. I am an optimist. However I don’t like having our nation go further in to dept on stupid expeditonary warfare, and purchasing stupid weapons systems that do more for shareholder value of said company than they do for anything resembling a sensible national defense plan.

but oh so true, you sound like a broken record

Really? You mean compared to the plane x vs plane y posts that show up here with no end in sight? Compare your past posts on this forum to mine.

gang raped by how many F-22’s? Good aircraft it is, but how many can the US throw up into the air, let alone to all the corners of the globe where US bases exist? You are seeking high end solutions for every problem when a cheaper (compared to the F-22 at least) can do some of the jobs

It is a special use assault aircraft. It doesn’t have to be everywhere. Of course that is a topic all to itself of how we don’t need to have numerous bases all around the globe doing monic expeditionary warfare or in countries that can defend themselves. I don’t see how wasting money on a limited system like JSF is going to be “cheaper”.

Your buddy relies heavily on armed UCAVs to satisfy the role of numbers and to make his arguements come together.

Entertaining? Yes. But there is also a lot of logic in his banter. UCAVs aren’t a solve all solution, But when MOST of the targets on a first nights beat down are FIXED and KNOWN… ( airfield intersections, hard shelters, fuel supplies, etc )… UCAV makes a lot of sense. They can also be retargeted on the fly.

However how far along are these UCAVs? certainly not as far in development as the F-35.. furthermore,

Not from what I have seen. UCAV X45 and X47 has made great progress. JSF on the other hand has system integration problems with hair on them. All that would be OK if JSF was a worthwhile effort. Its not. It does’t bring enough to the fight.

because of the loss of a “human factor”.. how does one respond to when signals are hijacked, etc?

There isn’t that much of a loss of human factor. We have no problem with sending off hundreds of cruise missiles ( in Desert Storm over the west Iranian moutains so they could get a nav fix ( pre GPS days ) or just using cruise missiles in general. You can consider ONE use of the X45 47 uses as a reuseable cruise missile, except the payload is more versatile. So funny that some are ready to shoot off a one time use $400k… $500k etc cruise missile for one target, yet have a problem with a vehicle that can be reused after one strike. Manned airpower isn’t going away. But to waste tons of money on JSF when we can hit all the targets without it, is silly. We do not have the money for this. Pre Iraq it was a dumb decison. Today it is an even worse road to go down.

Perhaps it is my paranoia that something unmanned could easily be used against his own forces. Let alone having the same situational awareness.

Its not perfect. Then again I will put our com verification against anyone else, It has built in RTB routines in it in case of complete com out. This after flying it is what they had to proof of concept: secure com and com out. Situational awareness is based on what every decision maker on the net can see, not what a human controlled UCAV buy itself can do.

by that same logic why need the F-22? And the navy can sure get along using just F-18s and F-14’s with no manned replacement for the next 20-30 years..

You are joking right? F22 is needed to help secure complete air domination. Once complete air domination is taken care of we don’t have to do the all the remaining tasks with a stealth jet ( in this case a slow, short ranged one ) to do the remainder of the warfighting strike work. Legacy design airframes will do.

Perhaps you don’t understand maintaining a dominance in the aviation

Tell me what industry domination. Name the country/company, and most weapon systems now are cobbled together by multi-national owned corporations. Boeing each and every day has become just a corporation that gets a bunch of subcontractors together from numerous countries and slaps their label on it. And they aren’t the only one. Look at Gripen, look at the Indian SU-30’s, Look at the Chinese ones. Most of these mentioned have no particular country loyalty, their loyalty is to the stockholder and how many politicians they can buy. Go ahead and wrap a flag of your choice around a major airframe of your choice. A few times it makes sense, a few times it doesn’t. So this idea of protecting our national aircraft industry is a very large joke. Get some annual reports of all of these companies. The airliner industry would be your first look but lets look at defense.The LITENING pod isn’t U.S. yet a U.S. flag is slapped on it as if it is here in the U.S. We spend lots of U.S. tax dollars so a corporation here can bleed the tech to Israel or fill in the blank etc. Domination? Look at all the component makers of the F-16. Turkish wings, on some, Samsung airframe components on others… all starting with corporate giveaways of our tax dollars by a bought and paid for political system. If that is domination, you can have it. ( and I just named a few of many things ).

By insuring a flood of cheap/subsidize/ or for some countries, to simply make available an American aircraft simply puts their own industry/competitors at risk of losing to the competition. Look at how many Euro countries are adopting the F-35 versus the Eurofighter or Rafale.. you think by allowing the European companies freedom to sell their own product in Europe would be good for American interests in maintaining dominance in the industry, which includes keeping it’s labor employed?

Well the Euro customer is hardly a big dollar winner in the first place. The populace and more important politicans don’t really spend all that much on defense. If they want to use a Eurofighter or Rafale, more power to them. Every time we “sell” and F-16 deal, more times than not, it is a U.S. taxpayer giveaway. The Polish deal is a great example of many “sales”… where the only one that wins is the high end stockholder of a corporation. So excuse me if I don’t break out the flag and sing “Proud to Be an American” everytime we give arms equipment away.

such short term solutions you have, especially for one who follows a party that generally follows a unilateral path.

Well first off genious. I am not a republican so your lame assumption holds no water. Two… “unilateral path” …. If it was up to me we wouldn’t be doing expedtionary warfare of no value. Add Allied Force to that list and a few others…. pressing on further if it was up to me, we wouldn’t be in the U.N. and we would follow our own constitution, take all dems and republicans, tar and feather them and send them out of D.C. on a rail. They and an insurgent state department are traitors by any other name.

..

I believe the 767A is the right tool for the job. Problem is right now that our military budget planning is so far down the crapper, it will take a swan dive to save it.

the a-45/47 are more or less guaranteed..just by looking at the support they have going for them..(budget cuts made to them were the least)..i doubt that they would come into procurment competition against the f-35 as the fighter procurment budget is allready quite low as compared to historical levels…

Well in a way X45/47 has already been in the way of the JSF for dollars as what we have seen in the news even in the last 6 months. We simply don’t have anywhere near the endless dollars we had years and years ago. And not funding JSF at all would mean money for many other things that the military really does need. That is a huge problem.

the f-16/f-18/ would eventually need replacing just to make up the fighter fleets as 200 odd raptors doesnt even make up for half of the total no. of f-15C let alone the f-16’s(even if not on a nearly 1-1 basis) and doing so we need them to be effective in the 2025-30 enviroment (lifespans of new airframes) the f-35 has a far greater chance over the legacy airframes to achieve this…

If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. After large SAMs and enemy aircraft are beat down on the first few nights of a war… I don’t need a stealth airframe for just it’s stealth ability alone. Trashfire… AAA, small battlefield SAMs and MANPADS… can’t really touch a conventional airframe that is dropping a SDB, Paveway, JDAM ( and dual use PGMs ) from 30, 35 , and 40,000 ft and miles away. These PGMs still hit with sub 4 meter accuracy and there is nothing those ground threats mentioned can do to stop it. That is for strategic targets… thinning the herd ( beating up a conventional ground units heavy equipment before it even makes contact with our ground forces ) …. and later CAS.

I don’t need a Stealth jet to shoot down airliners and do home defense. And even the F22 offers speed/fuel economy/ long range … which even if it wasn’t stealth, would be of some value… And face facts…we just don’t need that many manned airframes like we did. One of many comments from a variety of sources Gen Jumper boss of USAF to F-18SH pukes have stated that 4-5 aircraft are doing the work today… of a whole squadron of strikers in Desert Storm. ….. targets per sortie. The quad rack for the SDB hanging on a SH or new block F-16 including a high altitude SNIPER XR pod ( or similar ) and backed up by high resolution ground radar… is flat out impressive. The F-18E/F used in this mode with no bombs and sensors only coordinated with JSTARs does fast FAC work and an endless freight train of manned…. and soon unmanned strikers come out of the JSTARs “stack” show up…have the targets handed to them over the net from JSTARs or the SH and this goes on 24/7 until a conventional enemy ground unit is Rodney Kinged into an unorganized, shellshocked mob…
So airframe numbers being reduced, doesn’t really bother me… and again… I can do it all with out JSF… I would rather see the money that is being wasted on the JSF… put into fielding the FB-22 in 10 years or so. FB22 as a theater sortie_per_day_target_per_day eliminator with it’s reach and speed where speed_fuel economy also means more flights per day, is going to be very very excellent.

as far as strike missions are concerned a case can be made that the FDOW scenarios with x-45’s/47’s would be equally effecient as with the f-35…however the air-force seems to think quite differently as to suggest that as of this time they need the JSF to replace legacy jets as multi-role fighter…something the x-45 is definately not.

USAF is in denial. They are still stinging from getting their head kicked in over the tanker fiasco and all the forced retirements, resignations or jailtime connected with that. Not to mention this years St Valentines Day masacre where current commited ops budgets of almost ALL areas of USAF are being pulled and thrown into sustaining the Iraq war. The F-16 mafia is looking for the next sex toy… all while you could do “more for less” with getting F-22 setup as needed and buying the latest Block of F-16. An F-16 with CFTs and the quad rack for SDB… the twin rack for PGMs under 1000 pounds means an CFT F-16 could show up out of the JSTARs stack with 8x SDBs and 4x each 500lb ( soon all these dual use laser/GPS/INS) and have excellent thinning of the herd or CAS support…. So really… I don’t see any need for JSF…. Again we are all out of money.. most of these sex toys are being bought on borrowed money with a government that is wayyy in debt. Something will give. JSF being cancelled would be a step in the right direction.

Boeing engineers have already come out and said that they engineered the 787 with such close margins ( lots of bonding and light materials almost sans rivets all together ) that it can’t handle being a tanker.

This doesn’t bother me much. Boeing isn’t much American made anyway, most of its work is assembled here in the U.S. with components from several world locations on things like 717, NG737’s, 767, 777 and especially 787. If Airbus gets into the tanker arena I exect the amount of U.S. workshare to be very little different than a 767. The M.I.C. ( military industrial complex ) is going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat if they want Boeing. The decision to close down the 767 line should be announced this year.

Cool photo. Thanks !!